Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments
lists at colorremedies.com
Mon Dec 29 21:01:38 UTC 2014
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Alexander Ploumistos
<alex.ploumistos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-12-29 20:39 GMT+02:00 Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com>:
>> Nope. Vastly more popular than OS/2.
> OK, yes, my Macintosh Classic didn't have a cli. But the Macs back then were
> much like feature phones are today.
This is beside the point. However, even if feature phones had an
installable developer tools do you think you'd develop applications on
the feature phone? Could you develop a HyperCard or Photoshop 1.0 type
of application? And you think it'd be usable? And you think it'd be a
ground breaking, game changing set of applications that would create a
multi-billion dollar industry? No on all counts so it's not only
beside the point, the metaphor is wrong.
>You got basic functionality in the
> standard package with the very beautiful UI and if you wanted to do anything
> other than draw in MacPaint or edit text files, you had to give $$ to Apple.
> So one could argue that the lack of a CLI (among other developer/power user
> tools) was part feature, part marketing decision.
None of that matters. The argument is that someone is only a developer
if they are using a platform with a CLI, specifically dominating the
process at a minimum, if not required to successfully develop
software. And a real developer would only ever choose such a platform.
And the cherry on this ridiculous hot fudge sundae, is that somehow
this perceived requirement might be changing due to one's age.
The first assertion is historically and linguistically wrong. The
second assertion is anachronistic, as that platform appeared 31 years
ago. I'd be surprised if the median age on this list is 31, so most
people on this list probably were in diapers at the time a
multi-billion dollar industry was being created by developers using a
CLI-less development environment.
Best as I can tell real developers are adaptable and use tools that
are available, but also aren't shy about asking for and developing new
development tools. Hughsie wrote the most functional, most stable, 1.0
version application I've ever used, and faster than Matilda the Witch
could flick her wand. Oh but if he wasn't slovenly dependent on CLI
tools at the time, he wouldn't be a developer, he'd be an operator.
It's just so absurd as to defy belief, and yet he's having eggs thrown
at him? WTFsauce. This reads like a really bad comedy show where the
distinctly not funny comedian starts throwing tomatoes at the audience
for not laughing. Oh but he's not a real comedian, because he wasn't
on a stage.
There is such a thing as listening too much to a community that can
act like an anchor to innovation. I think the most active developers
wanting a stronger IDE need one more thing, and that's a better filter
so they can ignore the egg throwers. The real developers are those
who are actively getting things done, and are not defined by what
interface they're using.
More information about the devel